“Public officials are accountable for their own conduct, but they are not vicariously liable for the acts of their subordinates.”
How later courts described this case
- “Public officials are accountable for their own conduct, but they are not vicariously liable for the acts of their subordinates.”
- “A judge has absolute immunity for any judicial actions unless the judge acted in the absence of all jurisdiction.”
- "A plaintiff must show the officer's use of force was objectively excessive from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene under the totality of the circumstances."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CASEY TODD WILEY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) 21-CV-2150
)
THOMAS J. GRIFFITH, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
Plaintiff proceeds pro se from his incarceration in the Macon
County Jail. His Complaint is before the Court for a merit review
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. This section requires the Court to
identify cognizable claims stated by the Complaint or dismiss
claims that are not cognizable.1 In reviewing the complaint, the
Court accepts the factual allegations as true, liberally construing
them in Plaintiff's favor and taking Plaintiff’s pro se status into
account. Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 649 (7th Cir. 2013).
However, conclusory statements and labels are insufficient.
1 A prisoner who has had three prior actions dismissed for failure to state a claim or as frivolous or malicious can
no longer proceed in forma pauperis unless the prisoner is under “imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Enough facts must be provided to "'state a claim for relief that is
plausible on its face.'" Alexander v. U.S., 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th
Cir. 2013)(quoted cite omitted).
Plaintiff alleges that he became increasingly frustrated with
the continuances in Plaintiff's criminal cases in Macon County, case
numbers 2018-CF-942 and 2018-CF-944. On May 2, 2019,
Plaintiff objected to yet another allegedly unjustified continuance
sought by the government. A "physical altercation" then allegedly
occurred, in which Plaintiff was allegedly beaten and tased while in
handcuffs, with officers "piling on" Plaintiff to the point where
Plaintiff could not breathe, even though Plaintiff had by then
allegedly agreed to walk out of the courtroom voluntarily.
As a result of this physical altercation, Plaintiff was charged
with aggravated battery of a police officer in case 2018-CF-878
(Macon County) in June 2018. Plaintiff alleges that the charges
were not supported by probable cause. The jury deadlocked, and,
on May 13, 2021, case 2018-CF-878 was dismissed by the State.
Plaintiff alleges that case 2018-CV-878 was filed to punish Plaintiff
for objecting in his other two criminal cases. Plaintiff asks that the
charge of aggravated battery of a police officer be expunged and that
he be awarded damages.
The prosecutor and presiding judge in Plaintiff's criminal cases
are immune from a lawsuit challenging their actions in those cases.
Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976)("in initiating a
prosecution and in presenting the State's case, the prosecutor is
immune from a civil suit for damages under section 1983."); Polzin
v. Gage, 636 F.3d 834, 838 (7th Cir. 2011)(“A judge has absolute
immunity for any judicial actions unless the judge acted in the
absence of all jurisdiction.”). Additionally, whether the dismissed
charges in 2018-CF-878 are eligible for expungement would be a
matter of state law, not federal law.
Plaintiff might be able to state a federal claim against the
officers who allegedly used excessive force against Plaintiff on May
19, 2019, but not enough information is provided. Plaintiff does not
specify which officers personally used force in the courtroom (if he
knows). The jail superintendent cannot be held liable for the
excessive force of jail guards solely because the jail superintendent
is in charge. Brown v. Randle, 847 F.3d 861, 865 (7th Cir.
2017)(“Public officials are accountable for their own conduct, but
they are not vicariously liable for the acts of their subordinates.”).
Additionally, officers may use the force reasonably necessary to
maintain control in the courtroom. Horton v. Pobjecky, 883 F.3d
941, 949 (7th Cir. 2018)("A plaintiff must show the officer's use of
force was objectively excessive from the perspective of a reasonable
officer on the scene under the totality of the circumstances."). A
letter from the Jail Superintendent attached to the complaint
states:
I am responding to your request to appeal the time given
to you in disciplinary segregation.
On May 9, 2019 you were in courtroom 6A at the Macon
County Courthouse. As [sic] some point during your
court hearing you became extremely combative with the
court security officers and attempted to go after the judge
and your defense attorney. Your actions resulted in
several officers having to respond to assist in restraining
you. Officer were forced to use multiple conducted
electrical weapons and pepper spray in order to maintain
control of the incident . . .
The statements in this letter, if true, suggest that the force
used against Plaintiff was reasonable. Plaintiff does not provide
enough facts about what happened to allow a reasonable inference
that the force used was not reasonable.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1) Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice for
failure to state a claim.
2) Plaintiff may file an amended complaint by October 15,
2021. If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint, or the
amended complaint does not state a federal claim, then this action
will be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim, and this
case will be closed.
3) Plaintiff’s motion for the Court to search for pro bono
counsel is denied (6). The Court cannot order an attorney to
accept pro bono appointment on a civil case such as this. Pruitt v.
Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 653 (7th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff has made
reasonable efforts to find counsel, so the question is “whether the
difficulty of the case—factually and legally—exceeds the particular
plaintiff's capacity as a layperson to coherently present it to the
judge or jury himself.” Pruitt, 503 F.3d at 655 (7th Cir. 2007). At
this early stage, Plaintiff need only be able to accurately explain
what happened. The Court then applies the law to determine
whether those events might state any federal claim. Plaintiff's
complaint already clearly explains what happened. There are
simply not enough facts to determine whether a federal claim is
stated. Plaintiff appears able to proceed pro se for purposes of this
stage. If the Court determines that Plaintiff's amended complaint
states a federal claim, Plaintiff may file another motion for counsel
after Defendants have been served, setting forth how far he has
gone in school, any jobs he has held inside and outside of prison,
any classes he has taken in prison, and any prior litigation
experience he has.
4) Plaintiff's letter docketed on September 1, 2021 was
docketed as a motion for miscellaneous relief. The motion appears
to primarily ask about the procedure for requesting pro bono
counsel. As explained above, pro bono counsel is not necessary at
this time. This motion is moot. [7.]
ENTERED: 9/15/2021
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE